Fact: Students continue to occupy the lawn in front of Johnson Hall.
Fact: They want the University to sign onto the Worker Rights Consortium.
Fact: Today the University Senate will probably recommend to University President Dave Frohnmayer to join the WRC.
Fact: Frohnmayer said Monday he would sign onto the WRC by the end of the week if the senate does make that recommendation.
Fact: Even after the president does this, some students will still be very angry.
Fact: This has to do with the concept of shared governance.
Shared governance is the term used to describe the way the University is run, although many of the student protesters do not agree that there is shared power. Much like our U.S. government, there is a senate, a president and a University Assembly (which convenes at least three times a year and has the power to introduce legislation according to the University Senate Charter). The University Senate is comprised of committees that make recommendations to the University president.
Students do have a voice on this University Senate. Five students are elected each year to sit on the senate, and they have voting rights. Also sitting on the University Senate are faculty and staff, for a total of 48 seats. Students have more say on the University Assembly — this includes 25 members of the ASUO Executive, 18 from the ASUO Student Senate and five from the ASUO Constitution Court.
What some of the protesters in front of Johnson Hall want is a change to this system. They want Frohnmayer to recommend that the University Assembly add more students to the University Senate and to each committee. They think that the committees from the University Senate should have decision-making power rather than always needing the final say of the president.
Student democracy and power is a must in certain situations. But there is such a thing as going too far. We need people who are going to be around for more than four years to make crucial long-term decisions. Students just can’t do it. They aren’t available.
These kinds of long-term plans and ideas about how the University should be run should not be made fleetingly. And, unfortunately, being here as a student for three to five years is pretty fleeting in terms of the bigger picture. We may want legislation that won’t even take effect until 2003. And by then, students may have different ideas. The bureaucratic system just isn’t conducive to people being around for a short amount of time. That’s why, perhaps, senators and congressmen on the national level are re-elected so often: It takes time to get things done, and if the mix of people making decisions changes every couple of years, nothing would get done.
Attitudes change from generation to generation and even within generations. People who are 16 years old now have vastly different experiences and histories than we students now do. They may embrace corporate greed with a vengeance — and that’s their prerogative — but if they undo what we’ve just done, then there’s no consistency for the University. And we need consistency for educational standards and business dealings. That’s just the way the world works.
At this University, we have seen shared governance at work. Students voted to adopt the WRC. Students on the University Senate made clear arguments to adopt it. Students on the Licensing Code of Conduct Committee did the same. Some students on that committee have complained that their voices were marginalized, unheard. But those faculty or staff who didn’t listen have apparently still recommended the WRC, so what wasn’t heard?
By all indications, the University will exercise the will of the students by the end of this week.
Our voices have been heard — and through the proper channels.